told us that they got the notification and walked away from the district. they just gave up when they got the notification. they did not way for the may letter, they walked on the march letter. that is a sixth of all of the people that you are looking to get rid of. we don't orderly like to compare ourselves to other cities in california because of our uniqueness and all of that. but, this is the paper from the united teachers of los angeles. headline says, first time in four years, no riffs. no riffs. and they detail across the bottom from 5900 in 2009 up to 9500 just as soon as mr. davis left and they had 0 this year, all right? so no rifs, you have figures in our own presentation that indicate to you that you don't have to do this.

and so i ask you to think seriously about it, the one vote that i would like you to make is have the vote on seniority order and i would like to see you make that one this time. thank you very much. >> thank you mr. kelley. >> okay. questions, or comments from board members? mr. haney? >> sure. this is my first time having this meeting, so i have a couple of questions of sort of understanding how this works and why we do this. you know it seems like in the past couple of years we have put out hundreds of these notices and all but a few have been rescined and in this next year we are expecting to have at least a some what better financial situation than we have had in the past couple of years and i think that there will be an expectation from the people in the city and the school community that we don't have this sort of pain that we have seen in the last couple of years come down on our staff and students in the school

community. and so, you know, i was sort of thinking and hoping that we would get to a place where we did not have to put out any layoff notices. and in the presentation, you mentioned that mr. bushman that you do expect or you hope that we will get to a place again, even if we put out this over 100 notices where only about a handful are rescinded. so i am wondering why this is necessary. why do you feel that and in light of the fact that in the last couple of years we have recinded as many as we have and why we need to do this again and why we have had the experience that we have had and having so many of them become unnecessary and why we are in this place again and especially in one thing that was not mentioned is a role of the rainy day fund in this. if we were either able to get the rainy day fund as we expect, we very well night, or if we were able to have some

sort of an arrangement as been discussed and that role does that play, in allowing us to prevent these from happening and would these notices be rescined as a result of the rainy day fund and just lastly, would you discuss the program changes that you discussed when you talk about laying off or putting off notices for 23 counselors or workers what kind of changes make that necessary that we have to do that? >> i am going to have to ask kevin to come up and talk about that. >> a number of these are classrooms where the teachers are no longer required, for example. there are no students for the

classrooms. >> could you answer? >> could you tell me your question about the social workers? >> that was a pretty long question. >> it was... yeah. you know, you are saying that we have to do this, i am trying to understand in light of the fact that in past years we have put out a lot of these notices and most have been rescinded and we do expect an improvement in the situation even though there are some things like the state grant going away and we expect an improvement. why would we put out so many again this year in light of the number that have been rescinded in past years? why do we feel that this is necessary in light of an improved and i know that there is some information here, but it is not giving me enough detail i guess into why this in light of our history with this. >> well, one of the good news stories is that in my ten years of doing this, we have always had to do multiple subjects for example, and we have an abundance of multiple subjects openings.

but, you know, when dennis and i wish that it was true that in a perfect world that all of the numbers lined up and that they were the same positions, but they are not. the majority of a large number of the people that are or the attrition that we have is in multiple subjects. so that is the category that we are not laying off because of that. which is a first and it is a great, that is a positive side. the rainy day fund rule? again, could somebody else answer that? could you answer that? >> well, commissioner, i think that it would probably make most sense to think about the 117 certificated employees and think about them in groups and to for us to explain or hopefully for everyone to

understand what is driving the various groups of those employees being placed on the action. so for example, i think that there are 36 of those 117 are state funded positions. so we could talk about what the context is there to the extent that we should explain that. but that, if that is already understood than that would reduce the number down to 81. there are a group and i am not sure that i have not done the totals. but i think that it is 15 or 20 positions that are in the counselor's and social workers to explain what is the context for those. likewise, for those secondary single subject, credential areas where there is some uncertainty at best about whether specific individuals who only hold the credentials in these areas and we are not

sure right now whether the schools's budgets will include in their schedules those positions that exist this year and so i think that it is a little bit hard to have one broad explanation that is over-arching, i think that it is easier to go through these different groups and to understand how the 117, or 118 breaks down to various chunks of employees. and... >> i would love it if you would do that. that is what i feel is missing, i don't understand why for each of these categories. before we get there could you... i am looking at the budget projections that you gave us. and the 13, 14, rainy day fund estimate is $1.1 million. >> sorry, commissioner that document is referring to the increase in the rainy day funds compared to what we were expecting a few months ago.

>> what is the amount that we are expecting? >> we are expecting, i believe that it is $6 million. >> you have counted it into the summarized projections that you gave us? >> that is right. with respect to the rainy day funds, i think that this is why it does sort of go hand in hand with the explanation about the various groups of employees because i think there is an embedded question within your question commissioner about if we had and if we hope to get these rainy day funds, would we use those rainy day funds in the exact way that conform to the employees and the positions that appear on this pks? and i think that the answer is in many cases no. so, if we do get the rainy day funds which we hope to receive, would we use those funds to keep these state funded positions in place for one more year? i think that the answer would

generally be, no, at least not categoryically across the board. sig was understood to be a three-year grant that would expire and we are at that point where those funds will expire, so to use these ongoing, operational funds, which we think of as the rainy day fund as well. i mean we have continued to get support, i think, for the four years running from the city from the rainy day reserve to extend for one more year the positions that have been funded by the grants that are expiring, we have known that they would expire at this time and i don't think that the superintendent and the staff would recommend to use the rainy day funds just to conform to the positions that are partly funded by expiring grants. but there is some overlap, i think to some extent, the decisions that will be made by the school over the next few weeks, we will see what results

from their decisions, for example at the high school level, some of these may very well be funded in the budgets and those%backer due in the beginning of material and to the extent that that happens we should be able to rescind those positions here on this list, but just for right now we don't have perfect information about, it is a timing flaw that we don't have perfect information about what will result when the schools finish their plans and so hopefully we will see that we will get the number down but we are required to meet the ed code deadline of march 15th. and so it is always a little bit of a problem in terms of having to bring this type of action before the board before we would idealy have to do that. >> i am going to have angie go

down through the overview. >> one second. mr. bushman. i think that the superintendent wants to address us for a second. >> yes, commissioner i think that at the most basic level you have a disconnect in the timing. by march 15th, we have to notice employees that potentially don't have reemployed but you don't have final budgets until april and we don't have final decisions until may when the rebudget comes through, this board adopts a budget in june, so what this does is insure's the board capacity to make staffing decisions at this particular point. now in our conversations with our labor partners we have assured them that we also share a very rosie out look for what that funding may look like. we also, in working with our school site, and the confident that the number of employees

that are being noticed will be able to find the positions in the schools and the budgets, if you notice that the slide number 9 that president kelley referred to and really glad that he referred to that, as of the 24th of february, there are 15 declared retirements, or 55, i am sorry of which 8 of them are administrators. so if that does not cover right now as we speak, the number of positions that are identified as potentially needing to be reduced. so this is as well an opportunity to preserve this board's ability to keep us financially stable. what i will also say is that as staff is working very closely with all of our groups, it is our intent as quickly as possible to rescind notices and bring back folks to positions. and one of the reasons that we are very, very hopeful is that the board has given us very

clear direction that for example, the learning that we have had from our superintendent, as an example the sig schools and the incredible achievement in those schools, we are developing a multitiered system so that we are able to take that learning and the support systems to a system, that we are aligning it with the funding that the schools. within that resign, you are going to see a number of positions that people will have the opportunity to take as well. so there is a lot of missing pieces here and i know that it seems ambiguous to you the bottom line is that there is a mix match in the timing of these decisions and that is why it seems that perhaps we should not be issuing any of these layoff notices. i also remind the board that out of an abundance of caution

we have issued a significant number of notices and we have scrubbed this list this year and we are confident that this is the minimal number of notices to be able to preserve the fiscal integrity of the district but also that we will be able to make the offers for the people to come back as well. >> do you want to proceed? >> sure. as you return, teachers, for example, an science teacher can't teach art, there are a lot of subject areas that are in their, for example, there are ten art teachers, there are two building and trade construction, there are three drama. and i am going to have angie go through the list quickly for you. but you know when you when there are people who leave, they don't necessarily match where your needs are. >> and the one thing that i would really want to say is that for all of the uncertainty

that we have, the mix match in time the one thing that is not a concern is that we can't go back and say we made a mistake and we needed to let 20 counselors go and we only put 15, how about we increase the number we can't do that. as a board you can't do this. we are bringing to you preliminary notification. we understand that it may not be totally accurate. we understand that we don't have budgets. but we also understand that if we don't put these numbers after a great deal of thought, we don't have the opportunity to come back and say, we have a mix match. so when you look at these numbers, this is the highest number you will contemplate throughout this process. these are preliminary notices and as a as a matter of fact, before the march 11th date, these numbers may be lowered. they will never go higher. by may 15th, they are no longer preliminary, those are real layoffs. what we have done this year is

that we did not blanket everybody and we did not go to multiple subjects and that is very important. every year we would go out and blanket 200 multiple subject teachers, because they were the least senior and the most abundant and this year we took a risk and said that there is attrition and we suspect that it is most in the multiple subject areas and we are going to absorb our multiple subject teachers which is a big risk because as budgets move we may have permanent tenure teachers that we have to find a placement for and we are blanking that we will have that kind of attrition. >> you have a focused layoff. i am not going to address the program mat tick reasons, we have addressed the sig, i am going to address the classroom program, when you look at the

art teachers, you are looking at ten people. the reason for that, is that we, again, have very senior, tenured teachers in these programs. these programs are subject to change. our enrollment is subject to change. so, here we don't have the luxury of saying, oh, it is okay we can absorb ten art teachers. if those positions are not there, we can't absorb them. that is why that number is high. for every one of the vocational ed credentialed areas that you see here, building, trades and drivers and electronics information technology and marketing and sales. the reason that they are here, is because we have heard from our side very specifically that our students are looking for different kinds of career paths. they are looking for bio tech and looking for the 21st century opportunities. these opportunities were there before. as a matter of fact right now,

we have a couple of teachers that we as a district are carrying because the student enrollment was not sufficient to warrant a full-time teacher. but this or these are very permanent teachers, we have to make good by our collective bargaining agreement. we are carrying those salaries. that is why you see this component here. when you look at social science that is also an area that has been impacted and english, in that we have decreasing enrollment at our high schools and we are in fact having to pay some of these salaries from our general fund. so that is why you see these very specific subject areas. >> we did not answer your question. >> miss ly? >> i had a question regarding your earlier comment when you replied to the commissioner haney, you said that some

classrooms did not have teachers that were required. i just want to know what you meant by that? and because i am confused by your earlier comment. >> in some classes, there are not enough students. and so, there are not enough students to support the teacher for that particular classroom. and so, therefore, the teachers... because the teachers no longer is required it is not a money issue, it is a fact that the function is no longer required. and we have some of that. >> okay. and also i would like to ask if we are going to reapply for the sig grant or reapply to the grants? >> very good question. so, we have spent, there is currently no reapplication for school improvement grants. deputy superintendent and myself and executive director

have been burning up the phone lines can washington advocating for another round of that application for sig funding. for this point what we have been told is that is not a federal budget priority. so there is not an opportunity currently for us to reapply. we do feel very confident though, that if there happens to be an opportunity to reapply, we are going to be very well positioned to apply and land another sig grant. but at this point there is no other opportunity. >> okay, commissioner wynns? >> i appreciate all of the work that this takes and as always we are all desolate about having to do this although i do appreciate the attempts to minimize this and particularly not to include any multiple subject which basically mean elementary school teachers. so we are presume and we presume that sounds terrible that they are more movable, you know if you are a third grade

teacher and you have to go to a different school, it is difficult for the teacher and the schools involved, it is more possible. >> so, really i appreciate that. but i wanted to ask about the what is different this year is that even though they are not finished, the school budgets, in the past the schools have gotten the budgets before we made this vote or around the same time. and so we knew more about what decisions the schools were going to make, even though they were preliminary. so, i'm just, i wanted to sort of put that on the record that we understand that we have less certainty, although it is not concern, less idea about what the school's decisions might be in the light of what their budgets might look like, happily they know because i was at the administrative meeting too that the way that the student formula is not going to

be cut and we have made that commitment and so they are able to consider that their possible difficult decisions in a different light. but still, so my question i guess is do we have any kind of guess about how different this is? or might be if we had gotten more input from the schools and so that we would have some or be able to think about while we make these difficult votes the likelihood is of some of these being undone not just because we get more money than we are anticipated now but because the school's decisions are made between now and may we have to make that final vote. >> so i get this one and far be it for me to contradict you. >> i hope that i am wrong. >> there is a part that is slightly inaccurate. when the schools do receive their budget, what they have not received in the past is their school site centrally funded allocations of staff and

that is where they really consider if they are going to augment or going to contribute more to that position than an assumption going into it. >> and that is right. >> and this will be the earlist this year that the smart team is attempting to as difficult as it is to get those site allocations out actually a month earlier than the schools would ever have received them in the past. so, largely, it is based on i know that i am going to be receiving that half time social worker, i really want a full time, i am going to see how i can augment the funding that we have. we have not done the augmentation of the school site budgets by the time that this meeting has to happen every march or before march 15th, because the schools don't turn in the budgets before march 15th. >> thank you, that helps me. commissioner murase? >> it is very clear that this is the toughest meeting of the year and this is really a joyness exercise, i just want

to recognize staff and our labor partners and members of the public and my colleagues for their very thoughtful cautious, approach to this difficult, difficult issue. i want to put on record two of my personal objections. the first, is the objection to the march 15th statutory deadline, it is state law, so i will live with it, i think that it is crazy to point out that we don't know what the state budget is until may, and really get voted on in july. so, it puts us in the impossible situation of having to guesstimate what our financial situation will be. second, i communicate to the staff my objection to the phrase lack of work because i feel like there is plenty of work to be done. but it was explained to me that was a statutory requirement in the resolution that we have to put in lack of funds and lack of work. but i want to put on record my

personal objections to that. and i said two clarifications, one is in the example of the para professional instructional aids, my understanding is with the philippine, japanese, para professionals that the school sites have an option whether to fund those from the school site budgets rather than what we are voted on what portion will be central ifunded. so i wanted to be clear that there is still an option that these positions could be funded by the school sites or a combination of parent-driven fund-raising for the positions and i had a second clarification. >> it is hardly anticipated that they will be funded by the school sites themselves. we just have to wait to determine what percentage of the fte they will augment the funding that they are given. and my hope is that proposition 30 has been adopted, that we

will rely less on parent-driven fund-raising to cover our positions at the schools. i feel like we have an obligation to pay for those positions. and the second clarification i wanted to request was about the non-reelection process. i know that as recently as three years ago there was a policy that... >> you know dr. murase, i had a discussion with mr. bush man and i was thinking that he could clarify it before we vote or if you would like it as part of it. >> and i apologize i did not tell you. and i am sorry about that. >> okay, miss ly. >> i would like to follow up. which classes do not have enough students because according to my knowledge a lot of the classes are over the amount of students required. which subject areas don't have as much students? >> it is not so much the subject area, and the exact classroom on the second floor,

it is a 9th grade english class, what it is that we are experiencing some areas where literally we don't have the students to fill to capacity the classroom. we don't need a full time teacher. now, it is happening regrettablely in our early education department where we know that we are closing classrooms because we don't have enough children. we are redeploying our resources so that the children that we do have will get the entire benefit of the educational experience. but, we don't need three teachers we only have enough students for two. we really look at the subject areas, we look at the student enrollment and we look and we have a teacher in there that is full time. i hope that answers your question. >> do you want to answer that kevin? do you want to add to it? >> so, when the schools are building a master schedule and trying to anticipate what courses they need next year,

they have to hold back some because i don't know as you guys matriculate from 9th to tenth we are going into the same classes, what you need to have and i know that you are going to not go from algebra to jump into algebra two so i have to be very cautious about how the matriculating on. so then when you actually go into that grade and they actually fall down and you are building your schedule. this is a really conservative thing, i can't predict as a high school principal i could not predict what classes i need i need to build the schedule and i need to have a rough idea of how many teachers i need but there is going to be overlap and i am going to have extra sections of math and not enough sections of history. and so we have to go some what conservative here because i might end up with a us history class with 8 kids in it and then i have to parcel that out and so this is anticipating next year, i am not saying that

we have them under filled this year, but being conservative for next year, does that make sense? >> yes. >> it is just like at my school was just the biggest school there are so many students in one classroom and over 30 and teachers always complain tla are so many students, why can't we redistribute the students? >> why can't you redistribute students? >> they are just saying... >> like we don't need that many teachers, then why can't we just put the students in their classroom and have the teachers teach them? >> and then, you know, i would have to put my mission perspective on it. assuming that is passed. and so, but i do know that the mb